Prev: Re: Vietnam and modern combat Next: Re: Vietnam and modern combat

Re: Vietnam and modern combat

From: Ryan Gill <rmgill@m...>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 12:29:32 -0400
Subject: Re: Vietnam and modern combat

At 3:54 PM +0000 4/23/04, agoodall@att.net wrote:
>I haven't written anything down, but I have done a little bit of 
>work on a Vietnam War scenario for SG2 (using other things as well; 
>those who know what I mean when I say "Tcho-tcho" and "Delta Green" 
>will probably smile at this...).
>
>SG2 will work well "out of the box" for Vietnam. I was planning on 
>giving M16s and AK-47s FP 2, Imp. D10. M60s would use the SAW stat. 
>I'm still working on other weapons. Armour would be D4 if 
>unarmoured, D6 if wearing an actual helmet, and D8 for helmet/flak 
>jacket combination.

Impact should be lower. The FALs and M14s should be higher. (Don't 
forget the Aussies! You don't want the diggers cross with you!)

.223 carries a lower impact than a 7.62x51 and that's lower than .50.

I'd say impact of D8for the 223 and 7.62x39. D10 for 7.62x51 (or 
.303) and D12 for the .50. Remember, the Body armor of the day didn't 
do squat for rifle rounds.

Little 38s would be would be D4 and the M1911 would be D6 impact. 
Same for M1 carbines. The flak vests should have a chance for 
stopping the 38s to some degree.

Since you're doing Vietnam, you might want to draw a difference 
between the Full and Semi-auto M16s where appropriate. The same goes 
for the M14s.

Firing those on full auto should raise the FP, but lower the accuracy
some how.

The SAS Diggers had some FALS that were heavy Barrel models with more 
ammo and a higher FP die.

There's also the M79 Grenade launcher (Blooker as a Marine upstairs
calls it).

The US and British troops with body armor would have a D4 armor value.

>Most of the rules, including aerospace and artillery, look like 
>they'll work with very little modification. I just need to come up 
>with stats for the helicopters (probably use the Grav stats, with a 
>little modification). I didn't bother doing tanks or APCs as my 
>scenario won't use them, but they shouldn't be hard to figure out.

ACAVs, M47s and M48s. The odd thing is that in Vietnam the standard 
method of handling a tank was as follows:

Driver Drives
Loader loads
Gunner stands on back deck and fires an M60 or an M79 (one or the 
other depending on the situation)
TC controls and fires the Main Gun with his override, Kicks the coax 
back plate to fire it and also handle's his .50.

That had a lot of not so accurate but very aggressive fire from every 
tank with all weapons firing. When you add Behive to the mix, it was 
awful for those down range. Based on books I've read, an ACAV troop 
could handle a regiment or three of NVA or VC all by it's self.

The ACAVs with the .50 run by the TC, two M60s run by the "not 
dis-mounts" and an M16 and M79 run by another "not dis-mount" was 
pretty hot to handle as well.

Anyone want to work up SG stats for an Ontos?
6 106mm Recoilless Rifles and 4 .50 cal spotting rifles.

-- 
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
-		  Data Center Operations Group		      -
-		http://web.turner.com/data_center/	       -
----------------------------------------------------------------
- Ryan Montieth Gill		       One CNN Center SE0813 E -
- Internet Technologies   --   Data Center Operations Manager  -
- Hours 11am - 7pm Mon - Fri	    (8Sdc, 10Sdc IT@3Ndc)      -
- Cellular: 404-545-6205	     e-mail: Ryan.Gill@cnn.com -
- Office: 404-588-6191					       -
----------------------------------------------------------------
-	      Emergency Power-off != Door release!	       -
----------------------------------------------------------------

Prev: Re: Vietnam and modern combat Next: Re: Vietnam and modern combat